![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding this edit, Heqin is not specifically a Mandarin term. There was no Mandarin language during the Han dynasty. — Insta ntnood 07:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I am pretty sure this concept is not exclusively Chinese. I am pretty certain there were marriages between European royal families in the past that were arranged to install trust and peace between nations, albeit it doesn't always work. -- Voidvector 02:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does this person keep erasing information on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.18.38 ( talk)
This edit established the usage of the page as BC/AD. Kindly maintain it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 00:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, this edit established the usage of the page as American English and, again, kindly follow it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 01:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thor's Axe is not only restoring his edits were only about headings and the Qing section. He readded other unsourced changes by Montalk123 to the content of other sections relating to ethnicity and not just the headings among them openly unsourced and false like saying Khitan are "a proto Mongol-Manchu-Korean people" and claiming a Xianbei princess of northern Wei was a Chinese in "428: Emperor Mingyuan of Northern Wei marries off his Chinese daughter, Princess Shiping (始平公主), to non-Chinese Helian Chang, Emperor of Xia.", claiming Qu Boya of Gaochang was non Chinese when the Qu family was Han Chinese and calling a Xianbei Murong princess as Chinese "Princess Yanjun (燕郡公主) (surname Murong (慕容))". Opasney ( talk) 15:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a false accusation. I was not aware of Montalk123's editing, my only action was to revert your destructive reversion. Even if you want to discuss the edits from other users, you are not supposed to completely delete my contributions based on evidence. You should take responsibility of your actions, and it is your duty to prove the points in talk page and then make changes, rather than spreading rumours and disrupt others' contributions. Thor's Axe ( talk) 00:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Your first sentence is partially true to me. I remembered that whenever I reverted your edit it happened after I realise the Qing section and headings were changed. I did not see the case which you described as you only reverted vandalism without reverting my contribution. Also my latest edit did not revert all of your edits, but only, as I said, changed the headings and Qing section. Thor's Axe ( talk) 04:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not think title is a petty issue. Categorising some dynasties into "Non-Han" and reducing them to a lower level is deeply disturbing and improper. Thor's Axe ( talk) 04:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Each forces and dynasties was assigned a heading. The previous version classified all "Non-Han" dynasties into a subcategory, which I think is not appropriate.
China's history was shared by all ethnic groups involved in it, and all the nations and dynasties established should be treated equally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor's Axe ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thor's Axe ( talk) 13:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We do not insert weasel words like some historians claim while editorializing off a primary source - that's WP:SYNTH and counter to policy. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Your claims about "Synthesis of published material" does not hold here. My added part and the old part were discussing exactly the same event. You need to justify two of the assumptions you've made:
"Did you just accuse me of vandalism for asking you to seek consensus for specific edits before inclusion?" No I am accusing you of vandalism for deleting a contribution that was properly supported and properly used primary resources. Thor's Axe ( talk) 15:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC) "downplay reliable sources in favour of a primary source" The two sources, I hope this is the last time I reiterate this, contradicts each other. None of them is my opinion. I just TRANSLATED the original historical record. I do not understand why you keep assuming me to be inserting my own opinion. I do not want to keep questioning you, but do you have any evidence I made a personal interpretation, or tried to "downplay" any sources? Thor's Axe ( talk) 15:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding this edit, Heqin is not specifically a Mandarin term. There was no Mandarin language during the Han dynasty. — Insta ntnood 07:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I am pretty sure this concept is not exclusively Chinese. I am pretty certain there were marriages between European royal families in the past that were arranged to install trust and peace between nations, albeit it doesn't always work. -- Voidvector 02:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does this person keep erasing information on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.18.38 ( talk)
This edit established the usage of the page as BC/AD. Kindly maintain it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 00:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, this edit established the usage of the page as American English and, again, kindly follow it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 01:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thor's Axe is not only restoring his edits were only about headings and the Qing section. He readded other unsourced changes by Montalk123 to the content of other sections relating to ethnicity and not just the headings among them openly unsourced and false like saying Khitan are "a proto Mongol-Manchu-Korean people" and claiming a Xianbei princess of northern Wei was a Chinese in "428: Emperor Mingyuan of Northern Wei marries off his Chinese daughter, Princess Shiping (始平公主), to non-Chinese Helian Chang, Emperor of Xia.", claiming Qu Boya of Gaochang was non Chinese when the Qu family was Han Chinese and calling a Xianbei Murong princess as Chinese "Princess Yanjun (燕郡公主) (surname Murong (慕容))". Opasney ( talk) 15:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a false accusation. I was not aware of Montalk123's editing, my only action was to revert your destructive reversion. Even if you want to discuss the edits from other users, you are not supposed to completely delete my contributions based on evidence. You should take responsibility of your actions, and it is your duty to prove the points in talk page and then make changes, rather than spreading rumours and disrupt others' contributions. Thor's Axe ( talk) 00:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Your first sentence is partially true to me. I remembered that whenever I reverted your edit it happened after I realise the Qing section and headings were changed. I did not see the case which you described as you only reverted vandalism without reverting my contribution. Also my latest edit did not revert all of your edits, but only, as I said, changed the headings and Qing section. Thor's Axe ( talk) 04:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not think title is a petty issue. Categorising some dynasties into "Non-Han" and reducing them to a lower level is deeply disturbing and improper. Thor's Axe ( talk) 04:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Each forces and dynasties was assigned a heading. The previous version classified all "Non-Han" dynasties into a subcategory, which I think is not appropriate.
China's history was shared by all ethnic groups involved in it, and all the nations and dynasties established should be treated equally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor's Axe ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thor's Axe ( talk) 13:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We do not insert weasel words like some historians claim while editorializing off a primary source - that's WP:SYNTH and counter to policy. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Your claims about "Synthesis of published material" does not hold here. My added part and the old part were discussing exactly the same event. You need to justify two of the assumptions you've made:
"Did you just accuse me of vandalism for asking you to seek consensus for specific edits before inclusion?" No I am accusing you of vandalism for deleting a contribution that was properly supported and properly used primary resources. Thor's Axe ( talk) 15:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC) "downplay reliable sources in favour of a primary source" The two sources, I hope this is the last time I reiterate this, contradicts each other. None of them is my opinion. I just TRANSLATED the original historical record. I do not understand why you keep assuming me to be inserting my own opinion. I do not want to keep questioning you, but do you have any evidence I made a personal interpretation, or tried to "downplay" any sources? Thor's Axe ( talk) 15:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)